People v. Feldmann

110 A.D.2d 906, 488 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48811
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 906 (People v. Feldmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Feldmann, 110 A.D.2d 906, 488 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Defendant contends that the admission into evidence of his hospital records, which included a blood alcohol test indicating that he was intoxicated at the time his car crossed the median on Route 110 and crashed into the victim’s car, was erroneous and in violation of his physician-patient privilege. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the trial court properly admitted the hospital records into evidence on the basis that defendant waived his physician-patient privilege through his attorney’s cross-examination of Police Officers Smith and Graziose. On his cross-examination of Smith and Graziose, defense counsel questioned the officers about the defendant’s subsequent treatment (i.e., the fact that a laceration of defendant’s chin required over 200 stitches), in an apparent attempt to elicit evidence that defendant’s condition at the scene was due to his injuries and not due to intoxication. Thus, defendant by affirmatively placing his physical condition at issue, waived his physician-patient privilege (see, People v Al-Kanani, 33 NY2d 260; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287; People v Conkin, 72 AD2d 607). In any event, even if the hospital records and blood alcohol test had been improperly admitted into evidence, the error would have been harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Nugent, 92 AD2d 735). Defendant’s other claims are either unpreserved for review or without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Williams
127 A.D.3d 1118 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Flores
40 A.D.3d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Barnett v. David M.W.
22 A.D.3d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Bolson
183 Misc. 2d 155 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
People v. Gonzalez
239 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. White
185 A.D.2d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Osburn
155 A.D.2d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 A.D.2d 906, 488 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-feldmann-nyappdiv-1985.